Search Results

The plaintiff complained of the defendant’s discovery responses. The plaintiff’s concerns were resolved by agreement except for a response to an interrogatory and a response to a request for production. The plaintiff bought a motion to compel including a request for direct inspection of the defendant’s media and for attorney fees. The plaintiff argued the production was deficient because the defendant only produced 22 documents in a significant age discrimination case. Plaintiff argued that the defendant’s counsel failed to supervise the defendant’s identification, collection, search, and production of documents.

The court found that defendant’s counsel was required under Fed.R. Civ. P. 26(g) to oversee the defendant’s efforts responding to the plaintiff’s request for production. Citing In re Abilify (Aripiprazole) Prod. Liab. Litig., No. 3:16-MD-2734, 2017 WL 9249652, at *3 (N.D. Fla. Dec. 7, 2017), the court noted that “self-collection by a layperson of information on an electronic device is highly problematic and raises a real risk that data could be destroyed or corrupted.” The court, however, declined to permit direct inspection noting that such orders require careful precautions to avoid the improper release of proprietary, confidential, and personally identifiable ESI. The court deferred action on the request for direct inspection and fees and ordered the defendant’s counsel to meet and confer with the plaintiff’s counsel to resolve the production issues. Defendant’s counsel was admonished to adhere to counsel’s obligations under Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(g) and to so advise the defendant.

Order Granting In Part and Denying In Part Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel

Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel A Privilege Log, Better Discovery Responses, and Fees

Defendant’s Response to Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Discovery

Plaintiff’s Reply to Defendants Opposition to Better Discovery Responses